"We're not colluding with our competitors to fix prices on rental units, we all use a third party service to collude for us" is such a bullshit legal excuse that I'm shocked they even floated it.
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
134 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59190 readers
2588 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's the history of anti-trust law. A lot of cases business just admit it because they are that ignorant/blatant.
Unfortunately as well historically a lot of conservative judges do radical legislation from the bench because they don't like anti-trust law and think they should regulate the economy. So much so that they have fucking bent civil procedure over backwards to do so and write some of the stupidest lines in the history of jurisprudence.
And in the meantime the market has been wrecked with this being an additional factor. The effect of the pricing adjustments done using this method will never go away.
How is this different than gas stations looking at a price tracking app to set their prices? You know, the apps that show you what gas costs all over town. It’s just information, and they obviously make the choice to raise prices when theirs are low compared to peer competitors.
That doesn’t mean a gas station doesn’t charge less when it’s in an undesirable location, or charge more when it’s in a busy location. Same is true for housing.
I know everyone is pissed about the high cost of housing, but this case doesn’t really have merit. It’s not the horse to cheer for.
The difference is that the information gas stations are using is public, but the information used by RealPage is non-public and sensitive.
If there is evidence that the gasoline station operators talked to each other about increasing prices and agreed on a common pricing plan, however, that may be an antitrust violation.
…
Each company is free to set its own prices, and it may charge the same price as its competitors as long as the decision was not based on any agreement or coordination with a competitor.
So the question becomes: does use of RealPage qualify as “coordination with a competitor?”
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. That includes exchanging prices with the intent to fix prices or the exchange affecting the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.5 - source Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[5]
In this case you have them sharing prices with RealPage in exchange for information that will affect their prices.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems pretty clear that this situation could qualify as price fixing.
Thanks so much for the reply. I didn’t understand that it’s private; I figured it was just aggregating Zillow and Craigslist postings etc, which are public. If that isn’t the case, then yes I can see how it might be illegal.